The importance of detecting potential security threats has dramatically increased in recent years. Airports, seaports, mailrooms and border checkpoints (e.g., U.S. Customs and Border Protection locations) handle countless packages, shipments and baggage items on a daily basis, some of which may include dangerous articles. Concert venues, sports stadiums and other highly populated locations or high risk environments pose particular concerns given the extensive harm that may be inflicted in the event that a security threat goes undetected. To interject such threats, many locations utilize screening equipment to scan items (e.g., cargo, bags, luggage, mail or shipment containers) for the purpose of detecting explosives, weapons, contraband or other materials that may pose a security risk. The screening equipment (e.g., x-ray machines) is operated by security personnel who may need to be in contact with subject matter experts (e.g., a bomb detection expert) to analyze the items which are being scanned.
In one useful configuration for a threat detection system, individuals who operate and monitor screening devices at the screening locations are placed in communication with experts who are located remotely. Often times, the screening device operators are able to determine whether or not a large majority of items pose a security threat. However, if a screening device operator is unable to determine whether a particular item presents a security threat, the operator may contact the remotely located expert for assistance in evaluating the item. This particular configuration is practical because the number of potential security threats is relatively low in comparison to the total number of items being scanned. Thus, experts need not be located at, dispatched or dedicated to, each and every screening site, giving them the ability to assist multiple sites remotely. Accordingly, a relatively small number of experts can be utilized to assess potential security threats at various screening locations that deploy large numbers of screening devices.
Although the configuration of the threat detection system described above has many advantages, effectively implementing such a system can be difficult for several reasons. The fact that the experts are located remotely from the individuals who are operating the screening devices can create a time delay, with respect to both establishing a connection with the expert and assessing whether a suspicious item poses a security threat. Given the volume of items that need to be evaluated and the safety concerns that are presented by a potential security threat, it is important to minimize the time spent establishing such connections between operators and remote experts, as well as the time required to assess the potential security threat.
In addition, remote experts should be available to answer the requests submitted by the screening operators at all times, regardless of whether the threat detection system is experiencing a high level of traffic. Failure to ensure that all requests are handled appropriately could create dangerous situations (e.g., in the case that a screening operator believes that an item is bomb or a gun) and may cause unnecessary delays for both the screening operators and individuals at the screening locations who are waiting to be inspected.
Ideally, the requests for assistance originating from the screening locations should also be routed to the experts who are best suited to handle the requests. Furthermore, after a remote expert has accepted a request for assistance, the remote expert may not be able to resolve the request and may desire the assistance of a second remote expert. Unfortunately, conventional threat detection systems do not enable a remote expert assigned to a request to communicate with other remote experts in an efficient manner in order to resolve the request. Instead, the local operator at the screening location is typically required to end the help session with the remote expert who has accepted the request and to submit a new request in the hope that he or she is connected with a different remote expert that is able to resolve the request. Thus, a local operator may be required to submit several separate requests before connecting with a remote screener that is able to provide assistance with resolving a request.
Another problem associated with conventional network-based threat detection systems is that these systems require all of the remote experts to be located at a single operations center in order to perform their duties. Requiring the remote experts to be physically present at the operations center can impose serious limitations on the scalability of the system and the ability of the system to service a growing number of customers or screening locations. For example, if all of the remote experts were required to be located at a single operations center, this may reduce the number of qualified remote experts that can be retained to provide assistance (e.g., since the remote experts must be located within traveling distance of the operations center). In addition, this prevents other third-party remote experts (e.g., remote experts who are employed by a customer or at a screening location) to be assimilated into the threat detection system.
Thus, a need exists for providing a threat detection system that is able to efficiently route requests and connect qualified experts with screening operators and customers according to their needs.